




















;^;^^ 

i/?^'-i^ 



^j^ 









''■'i''Wi<v:i*,i^ 'V 



■^♦., 



S.^l.^i-j.. 






''■v^^rr 



; i ■-{,:' 






■ -k ■':'■ '■ : 












V-, 









-A (1 



•V ''A:/,. - 



', ^''v" .',"a 















KANSAS AND THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 



SPEECH 




OF 



HON. I. WASHBUM, JR., OF MAINE. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 7, 1858. 



Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say at this 
time about the neutrality laws or William 
Walker. I shall speak to-day of Kansas and 
the Lecompton Constitution. On the 30th day 
of May, A. D. 1854, the memorable act, entitled 
"An act to organize the Terjitories of Nebraska 
and Kansas," was passed by the Congress of the 
United States. Among its provisions was the 
following : 

" That the Constitulion, anvl all laws of the United 
States which are not locally iiiapplipable, shall have the 
same force aiiU effect within the said Territory of Kansas 
as elsewhere wiiliiu the United Slates, except the eighth 
section of the act preparatory to the admission of Mis- 
souri into the Union, approved March 6th, lf-20, which, 
being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention 
by Congress with Slavery in the States ajid Territories, 
as recognised by the legislation of 1?50. commonly call- 
ed the compromise measures, is hereby declared inope- 
rative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of 
this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or 
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo 
pie thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do- 
mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Constitulion of the United States: Provided, TUai notliijig 
herein contained shall be construed lo revive or put in 
force any law or regulation which may have existed 
prior to the act of March 6th, 1850, either protecting, es- 
tablishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery." 

This doctrine of non-intervention by Congress 
in respect to Slavery in the Territories — to its 
inventor, (for it was a new thing under the 
Bun,) the present Secretary of State, if not to 
the country, the direful spring of unnumbered 
woes — was founded upon the assumption, that 
with the people of the Territories resided the 
right to manage their own affairs, to regulate their 
social, domestic, and local concerns in their own 
way. It was asserted that this right had been 
practically conceded to them in reference to all 
local and domestic questions but one — that of 
Slavery. And it was maintained that the inter- 
vention of Congress in respect to this single 
question of Slavery was invidious, unjust, and 
unconstitutional, and ought to be terminated by 
a solemn declaration and abnegation by Con- 
gress ; so that, hereafter, in all sections of the 
country, it should be distinctly understood that 
the people of the Territories are to be left " to 
form and regulate their domestic institutions" — 
all of them — "in their own way;" that they 
should be as free to decide in reference to Sla- 



very as other questions, and be governed by one 
and the same rule concerning all of them. To 
show that I have stated correctly the grounds 
upon which this provision of the Kansas-Nebras- 
ka act was advocated or defended by those who 
voted for it, I will read some brief extracts from 
the speeches of leading Democrats, made in 
Congress while this measure was pending before- 
that body, and I may properly commence with 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Territories in the Senate, the Senator from Illi- 
nois. Judge Douglas, repeating what he had said . 
on a previous occasion, spoke as follows : 

"The position that I have ever taken has been that 
this, (the Slavery question.) and allother qurstions relalins 
to the domesii'! affairs and domestic policy of the Territo- 
ries, ought to be left to the decision of the people ll^em- 
gelves; and that we ought to be content with whattver 
way they would decide the question, because they have 
a much deeper interest in these matters than we have ; ; 
and know much better what institutions suit them than 
we, who have never been there, can decide for ihcm." 

The Secretary of State, Gen. Cass, then a Sen- 
ator from Michigan, e.xultingly hailed the triumph 
of "Squatter Sovereignty," when the Nebraska 
bill passed the Senate. He had previously made 
an elaborate speech in its favor, in which he la- 
bored to prove that the people of the Territories, 
as well as of the States, ought to be permitted to 
determine for themselves in regard to all their 
local institutions. He said: 

" VVe know we cannot touch their domestic hearths, 
nor their domestic altars; their family and soiiul rela- 
tions; their wives nor their children; thtir meti-srrvants ■ 
nor their maid-scn-aiits : their houses, iheir farms, nor 
thtir property, without a ^rosi violatioi of the inalienable 
rights o/" man, consL-crated by the blood of our fathers, 
and hallowed bv the affections of their sons'' 

The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] ■ 
it will be remembered, took an active and lead- 
ing part in engineering this bill through the 
House of Representatives. That you may un- 
derstand why he desired it might become a 
law, I will read a short passage /rom a speech 
which he made in this House on the Hth of 
February, 1854: 

" And where do you, calling yourselves Democrats . 
from the North, tjianil upon this great (|uc!>lioii of popular 
rights? Do you consider it Demoeraiio lo exercise the , 
high prerogative of stilling the voice of the adveiilurou« .- 
pioneer, and restricting his suffrage in a matter concern- 
ing his own interef t, happiness, and government, which 



M 



he is much more capable i f deciding- than you are T As 
for myself and ilie fne;ids of the Nehraska bill, we think 
lliat our lellovv-ciiizens who ^o 'o the frontier, penetrate 
the wilderness, cut down the forest, till the soil, erect 
school-houses and churches, extend civilization, and lay 
the foundation of future Slates and Kmoires, do not lose, 
by their ch,^nge of place in hope of bettering their condi- 
tion, eiiher their capacity for self-governmeut, or their 
just rightf to exercise it, conformably to the Constitution 
of the United Stales. 

■' V\'e of the South are willing that they nhould exerei.se 
it upon the subject o/ the condition of the African race among 
them, AS WELL as li'on other questions of domestic poli- 
cy " 

Such, sir, were the arguments and considera- 
tions upon which the friends of the Nebraska 
bill urged its adoption by Congress. There were, 
to be sure, a few gentlemen in both Houses who 
supported the measure on different grounds ; who 
repudiated and scouted the doctrine of popular 
sovereignty, as advocated by the gentlemen from 
whose speeches I have quoted ; but they were 
not the active and efficient men upon whose 
efforts its success depended, although they may 
.have been the parties who compelled its intro- 
duction. And I assert, without fear of contra- 
diction from any intelligent quarter, that the 
avowed purpose for which the Nebraska bill, in 
the shape which it finally assumed, was enrolled 
ajp-on the statute book of the United States, was 
to Assure to the people of the Territories the 
right to make such rules and regulations, laws 
and .ordinances, affecting their domestic inter- 
ests and systems, of whatever character, as they 
should see fit. Were it necessary to fortify this 
allegation by additional testimony to the same 
effect with that which I have adduced, it could 
bo found in more than fifty speeches, filling the 
columEi.e of the Appendix to the Congression^al 
Globe for the first session of the Thirty- third 
Congress. 

Such were the reasons assigned for the enact- 
ment of this law, by its influential and efficient 
friends 5 and to those of their number who, by 
their subsequent action in attempting in good 
faith to secure to the people the untrammeled 
exercise of this right, prove that they were really 
actuated by the motives which they professed, 
we may yield our respect, while we must con- 
tinue to lament that they should have fallen into 
errors so grave and so vital. The design of the 
section of the bill which I have read was not, as 
the President would imply, in giving the people 
of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska the 
power to vote on the question of Slavery, to de- 
prive them of the opportunity to vote on other 
questions of domestic interest; but, that the 
right which it was assumed they already pos- 
sessed, and had long enjoyed, to act on these 
questions, should be extended to the question of 
Slavery. And from the premises of the Senators 
and Uepresentatives upon whose labors the in- 
corporation of this section into the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act in the main depended, an argument 
in its favor, of very considerable plausibility was 
founded ; and the only argument that had any 
influence in reconciling the Northern Democracy 
to the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. 

Thus, I think, I have shown that if the mem- 
bers of Congress who voted for the Nebraska 
bill knew what they were about, the President is 



very much in error in asserting that its provisions 
do not contemplate the same submission to the 
people of all questions of interest to them, that 
he says is required in respect to the Slavery 
question. 

The opponents of this act denied that the 
people of the Territories possessed the absolute 
and exclusive right of legislation in regard to 
their domestic affairs. They did not yield their 
assent to the arguments to which I have refer- 
red, for they did not understand that the people 
of the Territories possessed an;/ legislative powers 
as of unconditional right. They believed that 
Congress might, if it saw proper, make all the 
rules and regulations for the Territories of the 
United States, so long as they should remain 
Territories. So far as the question of constitu- 
tional power to legislate for these inchoate polit- 
ical communities was concerned, they never 
doubted that it was vested in the Congress of 
the United States ; and they knew that this 
opinion had never been questioned, from the 
foundation of the Government down to 1847 ; 
that it had been expressly affirmed and acted 
upon by all the departments of the Government — 
by all Presidents, Cabinets, and Congresses — 
during a period of sixty years ; and had many 
times and often, and with great earnestness, 
been propounded as the true doctrine, even by 
those who were then laboring so zealously for 
its overthrow ; and particularly did they remem- 
ber that the Supreme Court of the United States, 
while the great and guiding mind of Marshall 
presided over its deliberations, had decided spe- 
cifically, in the leading case of the American 
and Ocean Insurance Company vs. Canter, (1 
Pet., s. 511,) that Congress had full, plenary, 
and exclusive legislative power over the Terri- 
tories ; and let me remark that they will not 
overlook the fact now — and to it I beg to call 
the particular attention of the House — that this 
opinion has recently been sustained by the same 
tribunal, in the most emphatic manner, in the 
celebrated case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, in 
Avhich it is expressly stated that Congress has 
general power to legislate for the Territories. 
So that, if there were no constitutional inhibi- 
tion in reference to the exclusion of Slavery, its 
legislation in the passage of the Missouri Com- 
promise would have been rightful and valid. 
The Supreme Court agree with the Republicans 
in denying the doctrine of popular sovereignty 
in the Territories, as asserted by the ostensible 
authors and most active promoters of the Ne- 
braska act, and in affirming the power of Con- 
gress to make laws for the government of these 
incipient States, in all cases and for all purposes, 
except in so far as it is restrained by the Consti- 
tution. That I do not err in this statement, ap- 
pears from the following extract from the opin- 
ion of Chief Justice Taney, in the case of Scott 
vt. Sandford. 

" It is thu.H clear, from the whole opinion on this point, 
thai the Court (in Insurance Company vs. r!nnter) did not 
mean to decide wlietlier the power (lo govern the Terri- 
tories) was derived from the clause in the Ooi'Mitution,or 
was the necessary con»e()ueiicc of the right to acquire. 
They do decide that the power in Con;:re.ss is unquestionable, 
and in this ict tntirtly toncur, and nothing wM be found in 



this opinion to the conlrary. The power Mauds firmly on 
the latter alternative put by the Court— that is, as'Me in- 
ti'itabte consequence of the right to acquire territory.' " 

So much for the Nicholson letter ! So much 
for " squatter sovereignty ! " 

It will be seen that the court ftilly agree with 
the Republicans in repudiating, root and branch, 
length and breadth, the dogma of popular sover- 
eignty, but differ from them in holding that the 
Constitution has forbidden the interference of 
Congress for the restriction of Slavery. The 
Republicans, maintaining the existence of this 
general power in Congress, insist that it extends 
to all proper subjects of legislation in the Terri- 
tories — the question of Slavery included. And 
they agree with Senator Douglas and General 
Cass, that it has no more power over Slavery 
than it has over other questions of domestic 
policy and interest. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans hold that, al- 
though the legislative power resides, and of neces- 
sity must reside, in Congress, it may be committed 
by the latter, in whole or in part, into the hands of 
the people of the Territories ; or, in other words, 
that Congress may govern through the instru- 
mentality of Territorial Legislatures, whose ac- 
tion, being subject to its approval or rejection, 
becomes, in effect, the action of that body. They 
also believe that it is wise and expedient to del- 
egate to the people of the Territories the power 
to make, or rather to initiate, the laws and regu- 
lations in regard to such matters, systems, and 
institutions, as are purely local, and aflFect only 
themselves ; but that there are subjects, not of a 
merely local character, which should be reserved 
for the exclusive legislation of Congress. Of 
such was the question of Slavery, or no Slavery, 
in Kansas, as it afiFected, not only the people of 
that Territory, but also of all the States, the in- 
terest and welfare, the peace and prosperity, of 
all. 

It was a question in which the people of Maine 
and the people of Texas were interested. The 
people of Maine believe that their interests are 
afiFected unfavorably by any act which extends 
Slavery, and enlarges its power in the country 
and in Congress, gives to the Representatives of 
servile labor increased power to protect and pro- 
mote the particular and special interests of those 
who live upon such labor, at the expense, and it 
may be to the destruction, of free labor — of labor 
that owns itself, and claims the right to protect 
itself as vital and sacred. And so they said to 
their Representatives in 1820, and have said to 
them ever since, while in all matters aflFecting 
the people of the Territories alone, it will be well 
for you to allow them to make their own laws, 
in those which concern not only them, but us 
also, reserve the power to yourselves and to us, 
whose agents you are, that our rights may be 
preserved and our interests protected. Grant 
not the power to the enemies of our institutions — 
the Mormons, for example — to go on to our own 
territory, purchased by our blood or treasure, or 
both, and there establish schemes and systems 
of wrong and immorality and violence, discred- 
itable to the age, and disgraceful to the country, 
and which, if not checked, will undermine the 



institutions of Christianity and civilization, which 
are the hutments and defences of Republican 
Liberty. 

Upon this point, I rejoice to be able to bring 
to my support the opinion of one of the wisest 
men the Republic has ever known, and whose 
authority in a question of this character yields 
to that of no other name. I refer to James 
Madison, from whose writings I read thus : 

"Every addition the Stutes receive to their nonnher of 
slaves, tends to weaken and render them less capiihle ol" 
self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nniiong, 
they will be the means ot inviting attack, instead of re- 
pelling invasion. It IS a necessary duty of the General 
Government to protect every part of their confines against 
dangers, <M loeW uilcrno/ oj (jrrernai. Everyiiiing, there- 
fore, which tends to increas"; danger, though it be a local 
"^•"V. yet, if it involves national expense or safety, be- 
comes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a 
proper subjrct for the consideration oflhose charged with 
the general administration of the Government." 

It required no extraordinary degree of fore- 
sight to predict what would follow the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise. The slaveholding 
oligarchy might use popular sovereignty for a 
special purpose ; but for them, as a principle of 
general application, it was not entirely safe. They 
had discovered that their system of servile labor 
was one which required continual bracing and 
strengthening. It is in its nature, as all things 
false and violent are, self-destructive. It must 
have scope and room for expansion, or it dies ; 
blasting the earth wherever it treads, it must 
have " fresh woods and pastures n&w," or it 
starves. It must be protected from without, and 
its defences and supports must be placed beyond 
the contingencies of puJalic opinion, and otit of 
the reach of ordinary assault; therefore, it must 
be guarded by constitutional sanctions. Hence 
the Dred Scott opinion — interpreted by President 
Buchanan, in his letter to Professor Silliman and 
others, as containing the doctrine, as it undoubt- 
edly does, that the Constitution of the United 
States affixes, in certain cases, to persons of 
African descent, the character of property — 
stamps them with the mark of chattels. If this 
be sound doctrine, it is plain that the Constitu- 
tion carries Slavery, not on]^ into the Territories, 
but into the States ; for whatever it makes prop- 
erty, no State law or Constitution can declare 
shall not be property. 

Sir, this is a monstrous doctrine ; and that it 
is necessary to be maintained, only proves the 
mischievous and desperate character of the sys- 
tem for whose protection it is invoked. If it ia 
the true doctrine, then was the Constitution 
ordained not to secure the " blessings of lib- 
erty" to the people of this countrj', but to fix 
upon them forever a system regarded, we have 
been taught to believe, by its framers, and all 
the early statesmen, as without foundation in 
natural right or sound policy ; then must it be 
admitted that the great end and object of the 
Constitution was to establish or protect Slavery 
everywhere within the range of its operations. 
For if it recognises, and was intended to recog- 
nise, property in slaves to such an extent that it 
is not within the power of a State, (or Territory,) 
by its laws, to forbid the existence of this rela- 
tion within its own jurisdiction, it does, in re- 



gard to property in slaves, what it has never 
been understood to effect in respect to property 
in anything else — it makes a fundamental dis- 
tinction between slave property and all other 
kinds of property. It has never been held that 
the Constitution gives to horses, oxen, carriages, 
or anything else, the character of property, in the 
sense in which it is understood by the President 
and by the Supreme Court to affix that character 
to negroes held to service. The legislative 
power of a State or Territory may, without 
doubt, declare that there shall be no property in 
liquors of domestic manufacture, in bank notes, 
in horses, in carriages without wheels or with 
wheels, or with wide wheels or narrow wheels, 
or in oxen, as I am informed the Legislature of 
Missouri has already done. Nobody, I presume, 
questions the existence of this power in the 
States. It is exercised by them every day. Deny 
it to them, and they are deprived of one of their 
most important functions. What power but that 
of the people of the several States can decide 
what shall be treated as property within their 
respective jurisdictions ? Shall the Federal Gov- 
ernment exercise this power? If so, whence is 
it derived ? Does the Constitution declare what 
is property in New York or Pennsylvania ? If so, 
what becomes of the police powers of thTStates? 
No, sir ; this right to declare what may be held 
and recognised as property exists in the several 
States, each for itself, and nowhere else. 

Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding these and 
other objections on the part of the true friends 
of self-government and of the Constitution, the 
Nebraska bill became a law, and the Missouri 
Compromise was abrogated and destroyed. The 
opponents of Slavery extension were beaten, but 
their responsibilities to the Territories, to the 
country, and to the cause of human nature, did 
not cease with this defeat. An opportunity to 
labor for the preservation of the Territories 
remained ; and duty and consistency alike en- 
joined upon them the obligation of taking care, 
so far as they had the power, that the act for 
organizing the Territories of Nebraska and 
Kansas should be honestly executed. They 
could not restore the Missouri Compromise — they 
attempted to do it in the last Congress, and 
failed — but they could say to the Democratic 
party, you have passed this act for the avowed 
purpose of enabling the people of these Terri- 
tories to decide for themselves in reference to 
Slavery, as well as other questions of interest 
to them — we fear that some of your number are 
determined that they shall not do so unless they 
decide in a particular way. To you, therefore, 
who really believed in what you called popular 
sovereignty, and who in good faith promoted the 
passage of this law for the reasons which you 
urged with so much earnestness and persistency, 
we look to take care thai wliat you alleged were 
its genuine objects, shall be faithfully carried 
out ; and as the best, and as all that we can now 
do, we pledee ourselves to act with you, if you 
will permit it, and, if not, to act without you, in 
honest purpose, to secure to the people of these 
new communities an opportunity to exclude 
Slavery therefrom if they shall so desire. You 



were pledged to protect them in the exercise of 
this grant, or right, if you please to call it so — 
pledged by your speeches, your resolutions, your 
presses, by the messages of your late President, 
and the inaugural address of your present. But, 
sir, in what way have these pledges been kept, 
and to what extent have you been permitted to 
keep them ? 

It is not necessary for my present purpose that 
I should recall to your notice the operations of 
the "Border Ruffians" in Kansas in 1854, when 
a Delegate was first sent to this House from that 
Territory, chosen by the votes of some twelve or 
fourteen hundred non-residents, men who had no 
better right to vote there than you had; in 185S, 
when a Legislature was imposed upon that Terri- 
tory by citizens of Missouri and other slave States, 
who, to the number of more than four thou- 
sand eight hundred, invaded it, and claimed and 
exercised the privilege of voting, and by their 
votes elected a large majority, if not all, of the , 
members of that body; in 1856, a year stained 
by the record of crimes and atrocities in that 
unhappy Territory, so monstrous and so strange, 
that history will set it apart, for its bad eminence, 
from all other years in the roll of many generations. 
But I will come down to the present year, and 
to what has transpired under the administration 
of Mr. Buchanan. And, sir, I regret to say that 
I am compelled to believe that this Administra- 
tion has never intended that the people of Kan- 
sas should be permitted to decide for themselves 
in respect to the question of Slavery. At the 
same time that I say this, in deepest sorrow, and 
because I must say it if I speak the truth, I re- 
joice with exceeding joy in the manifestation, in 
influential quarters, of a fixed and unchangeable 
purpose to see that what were urged as the true 
principles of the Nebraska bill shall be respected 
and carried out at all hazards. 

But to return to the Administration. I have 
said, in effect, that I do not believe that the Ad- 
ministration ever intended that Kansas should 
be a free State, let the wishes of her people be 
what they might. And for this belief I am pre- 
pared to give my reasons. Men and Govern- 
ments are to be known by their actions, rather 
than by their professions. Soon after the inau- 
guration of Mr. Buchanan, the question, " who 
shall hold the offices for and in Kansas?'' claim- 
ed the attention of the Administration. Govern- 
or Geary, who, it was understood, was in favor 
of Popular Sovereignty, so called, intimated, it is 
said, his willingness to continue in office as 
Governor, if he could be allowed to employ all 
the proper means necessary to protect the people 
in the exercise of their rights. But no; this was 
not to be thought of; and a distinguished gentle- 
man from Mississippi, in whom, from his residence 
in the South, and his known views upon the 
subject of Slavery, it was supposed, no doubt, 
that full confidence might be reposed by the 
Propagandists, was appointed in the place of 
Governor Geary. For the subordinatr lificea in 
the Territory the most extreme and lotorious 
Pro-Slavery men were selected — in so.ac iastan- 
ces, men who had been most unscrup ilous and 
violent in their efforts to defeat the popular will; 



CTen men who bad been tbe leading spirits in 
those deeds of inhumanity and blasphemy which 
made the Und shudder, and whose arms were 
red to the shoulders with the blood of their mur- 
dered yictims. 

It is true the Administration promised the 
people of Kansas that they should have an hon- 
est vote at their elections. How has this promise 
been fulfilled ? To say nothing of the election of 
members of the Constitutional Convention, to 
which I shall have occasion to allude hereafter, 
let me call your attention to the election of mem- 
bers of the Territorial Legislature. When it had 
been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Gov- 
ernor and Secretary of Kansas that the most pal- 
pable and stupid frauds had been perpetrated in 
McGee and Johnson counties, by which the ma- 
jority of the Legislature would be given to the 
Slave-State men — frauds so patent that the Pres- 
ident himself did not doubt their existence, and 
the Governor and Secretary, as fair men, could 
not help rejecting the votes returned through 
these frauds, whereby the Free-State men were 
placed in the minority in the Legislature — what 
did the President do? Approve and commend 
the course of Governor Walker and Secretary 
Stanton in performing their duty, and seeing that 
the right of the people to govern themselves, so 
far as delegated by the organic act, was not 
destroyed by fraud ? No ; but if all rumor be 
correct, he had for them nothing but frowns and 
reproaches. Now, if Governor Walker had been 
more faithful to the Administration, and less true 
to the people and his own promises, and had 
given certificates to the Pro-Slavery claimants in 
Johnson and McGee, it would not have been dif- 
ficult, under the forms and pretences of an ad- 
herence to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, 
to have brought Kansas into the Union as a slave 
State. But when this election was lost, all was 
lost, and even the pretexts of popular sovereignty 
were as good as dismissed forever. 

I now come to a consideration of the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution and the President's message. 
The Constitution of the United States provides 
that Congress may admit new States into the 
Union. The language used implies the exercise 
of a discretion in Congress ; it ought to be, no 
doubt, a wise, honest, just discretion. I do not 
understand from the Constitution, or from the 
practice of Congress, that any particular form of 
application is necessary. Whenever the judg- 
ments and consciences of Senators and Repre- 
sentatives are satisfied that the people of a Ter- 
ritory having a sufficient population desire to be 
admitted into the Union as a State, and they pre- 
sent themselves with a ConstituUiou providing for 
a republican form of government, and which does 
no injustice to other States, which contains noth- 
ing immoral, indecent, or greatly wrong, it is the 
duty of Congress to grant the prayer of their 
petition. But if the Constitution presented does 
not provide for a republican form of government ; 
if it contains provisions which are manifestly 
unjust to other States ; if its provisions are in- 
decent and immoral, although they may not be 
regarded as strictly inconsistent with the idea ol 
a republican form of government ; or if the mem- 



bers of Congress believe, and from the evidenco 
must believe, that it is not in accordance with 
the wishes of a majority of the people ; if they 
know, as well as such things can be known, that 
the majority of the people are opposed to it, and 
would vote against it if they had a chance, it is 
their duty to vote against the admission of a 
State under such circumstances. I should do it. 
I will not vote to drag a people into the Union 
against their will, if I know their will, an<l under 
a Constitution which is not theirs. I have no 
right to do so. In thus voting, I would abuse the 
power vested in me as much as I should if I 
were to vote against the admission of a State 
which should present a petition for admission 
accompanied by a just and republican Constitu- 
tion, and should have the best reason to know 
that it was the wish of the great majority of the 
people that she should be admitted. 

I shall not look to forms and technicalities, but 
to the substance, in such cases. I would not 
consider an enabling act by Congress, or an act 
of the Territorial Legislature, necessary in any 
case to authorize the people to ask for admission 
as a State. Should a Territory having the requi- 
site population desire admission as a State, and 
a respectable number of her citizens issue a call 
for an election at which the judgment of the peo- 
ple could be taken whether they would have a 
State Government, and it should be made to 
appear to my mind that a majority of the people 
desired the formation of such a Government, and 
should these people provide for an election of 
delegates to a Convention to form a Constitution, 
and elections be held under such call, and the 
people vote thereat and elect delegates, and these 
meet in Convention and frame a proper and re- 
publican Constitution, and submit it to the peo- 
ple, by a clear majority of whom it should be rat- 
ified, and I should perceive that all things were 
done honestly and in good faith, can there be the 
slightest doubt that it would be both my right 
and duty, under such circumstances, to vote for 
her admission as a State? On the other hand, 
if a Constitution should be sent here under the 
authority of forty enabling acts or Territorial acts, 
and the evidence should be of such character as 
to enforce the conviction that the people had 
never made that Constitution, nor asked for ad- 
mission under it; that it had been carried by 
fraud and violence over their heads, and was sent 
here, that a Government might be made for them 
which they would abhor and detest, I would have 
no right to vote for the admission, and no power 
on earth should compel me to vote for it. How 
poor and pitiful is all the talk about records and 
enabling acts, and Territorial acts, and proceed- 
ings regular in form, and legal bodies, when you 
know in your heart what the people want and 
what they do not want, and are required to act 
under a Constitution which clothes you with a 
discretion for just such cases, and calls upon you 
to exercise it wisely and honestly 1 

And now, sir, how is it with this Lecompton 
Constitution? Let us see whether, in the action 
of the Convention which formed it, and of the 
President subsequent to its formation, we have 
no evidence in confirmation of the opinion I have 



had the honor to express in respect to the designs 
of the Federal Executive; and also let us ob- 
serve how sadly the expectations of the real 
friends of popular sovereignty must have been 
disappointed in the Administration, which could 
not have had an existence but for their almost 
superhuman exertions. 

Let us consider, in the first place, as to the 
constitution of this Lecompton Convention. 
The President and his friends contend that it 
was fairly constituted, and fairly represents the 
people, and the whole power residing in the 
people ; and, therefore, that it was unnecessary 
to submit their work — to wit, the Constitution 
which they had framed — to them, for their rati- 
fication or rejection. He says the law for its 
constitution "was, in the main, /afr and just; 
and it is to be regretted that all the qualified 
electors had not registered themselves, and voted 
under its provisions." 

Sir, what are the facts? In answer to this 
question, I will produce no uncertain testimony ; 
and, in the main, will rely upon witnesses whom 
the President is estopped to impeach, and 
whose testimony was in his possession when he 
made the statement which I have quoted. Let 
us see what Governor Walker says upon this 
point, in his recent letter to the President : 

" That [ihe Lecompton] Convention had vital, not tech- 
nical defect . in the very substance of" its organization 
under the Territorial law. which could only be curei', in 
my judgment — as set forih in my inaugural and other ad- 
dresses — liy the submission of the Constitution for ratifi- 
cation or rejection by the people. On reference to the 
Territorial law under which the Convention was assem- 
bled thirty- four regularly-organized counties were named 
as eleclion districts for delegates to the Convention. In 
each and all of these counties itw^as required by lawthai 
a census should be taken, and the voters registered ; and 
when this was completed, the delegates to the Convejiiion 
should be ajjporioned accordingly, fn nineteen of these 
counties there was no census, and therefore there could 
be no such apportionment there of delegates based upon 
such ceii.sus. And in fifteen of these counties there was 
no registry of voters. 

"These fifteen counties, including many of the oldest 
organized counties in the Territory, were entirely disfran- 
chised, and did not give, ai.d (by no fault of their own) 
could not give, a solitary vote for delegates to the Con- 
vention." * * ♦ •' Nor could it be said the.'e counties 
acquiesced; for, wherever ihey endeavored by a subse- 
quent census or registry of their own to supply this de- 
fect, occasioned by the previous neglect of the Territorial 
officers, the delegates thu.s chosen were rejected by the 
Convent on 

" 1 repeat, thai in nineteen coanties out of thirty-four, 
there was no census. In fifteen counties out of thirty- 
four, there was no registry ; and not a solitary vote was 
given or cnvld be £f iff n for delegates to t/ie Convention in 
any one of these counties. Surely, then, it cannot be said 
that such a Convention, chosen by scarcely more than 
one-tenth of the pr'»sent voters^in Kansas, represented the 
people of that Territory, and'could rightfully impose a 
Constitution upon them wiihoul their consent.'' 

The failure to vote, says Governor Walker, 
who knows what he says, and proves it, was " no 
fault of their own." Again, in fifteen counties 
not a " solitary vote could be given;" yet the 
President regrets that the qualified voters had 
not registered themselves and voted ! 

Upon this point. Secretary Stanton, who is no 
Free State man or Republican, but a Pro-Slavery 
Democrat, as he himself has told us, says : 

"The ei^nsus thertjin provided for was imperfectly ob- 
tained from an unwilling people in nineteen counties o( 
the Territory ; while in ihe remaining counties, being also 
nineteen in number, from various causes, no attempt was 



made to comply with the law. In some instances, people 
and officers were alike averse to the procet dings; in 
others, the officers neglected or refused to act; and in some, 
there was but a small population and no efficient organi- 
zation, enabling the people to secure a representation in 
the Convention." 

There was no remedy whatever for these men 
who had not been registered, as was proved by 
actual trial. The case is not left to conjecture, 
but stands on evidence ; and here it is, in the 
memorial and protest of the people of Anderson 
county, Kansas, which I hold in my hand, and 
which I hope you will all read. 

Mr. Chairman, thus it appears conclusively, 
and from authority which cannot be disputed, 
that the people of fifteen at least of the thirty- 
four counties in the Territory were not and could 
not be represented in the Convention. Nearly 
one-half of the people in the Territory were de- 
prived of the right of being heard in the choice 
of delegates who were to exercise the highest 
powers of sovereignty. In one county in which 
there was no registry, the people did all they 
could to be represented in the Convention. They 
held a meeting, at which they voted and elected 
delegates. That these delegates Avere" the choice 
of the people of the county, and were elected 
with as much regularity as the circumstances of 
the case would permit, and that the county was 
entitled by its population to two delegates, are 
facts which do not seem to have been disputed. 
Yet these delegates were not received. If they 
had been, the whole action of the Convention 
might have been reversed. The Constitution 
was adopted, if I am not misinformed, by a ma- 
jority of only two votes. If the Anderson dele- 
gates, who would have represented as many of 
the people of Kansas as an)- two members of the 
Convention, had been allowed to vote, the Con- 
stitution would have been rejected. They were 
not permitted to vote ; the Constitution was 
adopted, and is claimed to have been the sover- 
eign act of the people. It was no such thing. 
The Lecompton Convention did not represent the 
sovereignty of the people, for it did not emanate 
from the people ; therefore the Constitution 
should have been submitted to them in such 
manner that, if they did not want it, they could 
reject it. 

But this has not been done. Let us place our- 
selves where the people of Kansas were on the 
21st day of December, and we shall find that 
they cannot vote upon the Constitution made by 
that Convention at all. Nine out of every ten of 
them may dislike it ; they may object seriously, 
and upon principle, to many of its provisions ; 
they may not like the power to establish a mam- 
moth bank ; or they may wish to reserve to the 
Legislature the power to grant divorces, although 
I. think it would be unwise to do so; (but it is 
their business, and they have a right to be heard 
on it ;) they may object to give to Johnson county, 
with four hundred voters, as large a representa- 
tion in the Senate as is allotted to Douglas county 
with two thousand ; they may desire to be permit- 
ted to vote for an adopted citizen for Governor, al- 
though he may not have been naturalized for the 
full term of twenty years. But, under the Le- 
compton schedule, they have no opportunity to 



TOte on any of these questions, or to say that 
rather than have the Constitution as it is, they 
will have none. The Convention only permits 
them to say whether slaves may hereafter be 
taken into the State or not. 

The President and his friends in the Senate, 
Mr. BiGLER and Mr. FiTcn, admit that the ques- 
tion of Slavery should be submitted to the peo- 
ple. But even this has not been done. The 
people are not to say whether they will have 
Slavery or not, but only in what way they will 
have it ; only in reference to the future sources 
of supply ; or, in other words, they are to be 
allowed to say whether or not the;/ will give to 
the business of slave-breeding, within the State, 
the advantage of absolute protection against for- 
eign competition. Vote any way the people can, 
and Slavery is fixed in the State, and for- 
ever, or until the Constitution shall be over- 
thrown by a revolution. The increase of the 
slaves in Kansas are protected by the " Consti- 
tution with no Slavery," and there is no pro- 
vision by which, under the Constitution, any 
changes can be made, hereafter, to affect the 
condition of the slaves now within the Territory, 
and their descendants. Not only till 18G4, but 
to the end of time, is the existence of Slavery 
secured by this Constitution. Though the " Con- 
stitution with no Slavery" be adopted, it will be 
with the condition "that the right of property in 
slaves, now in this Territory, shall in no manner 
be interfered with;" and as it respects the future, 
under this Constitution, it is provided that, after 
186-i, when the Constitution may be altered in 
all other respects, " no alteration shall be made 
to affect the rights of property in the ownership 
of slaves." Thus the people are to be bound, 
hand and foot, and a few interlopers and mis- 
creants, assembled at Lecompton, in 1857, will 
control the millions of people who are to inhabit 
that broad and beautiful land, for ages and ages. 

And this is Democracy; the Democracy of 
Slavery! This kind of Democracy — not that of 
Washington and Jefferson — is fast disappearing 
from our section of the country. Men in the free 
North cannot stand it. They are so much alarm- 
ed by its doctrines, that they will not only repu- 
diate it for the present and future, but be anxious 
to prove that they never had anything to do with 
it their lives long. This Democracy of Slavery 
will hereafter be in use only as a warning or a 
fright, and will operate as effectually to preserve 
our public domain against the ravages of Slavery 
as the scarecrow set up last summer by one of 
our down-east farmers did, to protect his corn- 
field against the depredations of the crows. It 
was so hideous and terrible, that it not only 
kept the crows off this year, but frightened them so 
badly that they brought back the corn they stole last 
year. 

Sir, the "Constitution with no Slavery" is 
held, by those who ought to know, to be the 
best form of a Pro-Slavery Constitution. See 
what is said by a correspondent of the Jackson 
Jfitsissipian, writing from Lecompton, on the 27th 
of November last: 

"Thus you see llial whilst, by submiltinjr the que^iion 
m this form, they are bound to bare a raUQcaiioii of the 



one or the other ; and thai while it seems to lie nii election 
between a Free-Siatc and I'ro-bluvery Constitution, it is 
in fact but a Cjuesliou of the future introduction of Slave- 
ry that is ill controversy; and yet it furnishes our friends 
in Congress a basis om which to rest their vindication of 
the admi.csion of Kansas as a State under it inio the 
Union ; while they would not have it sent directly from 
llio Convention. 

•' It is the very best yiroposition for making Kansas a slave 
State that was submitted for the consideration of the Conven- 
tion. In addition to what I have stat'd, it cmbriices a 
provision continuinK in forcit all existing laws of the Ter- 
ritory until repealed by the Lepisslaturc of the State to be 
elected under the provisions of this Constituuon." 

The Charleston Mercury entertains similar 
opinions, as will be seen by the following : 

'• We are equally satisfied with the action of the Con- 
vention. We dilfer, too, wiih the Pre.<ident, as to what is 
submitted to the vol-, of ilie people. We do not think that 
the question of Slavery or no Slavery is submilted to the vou 
of the people. Whether the clause in the Constitution is voted 
out or vottd in, Slavery eirists and has a s,tiarantee in the 
Constitution that it shall not be interfered tpith ; whilst, if 
the Slavery party in Kansas can keep or get the majority 
of the Legislature, they may open wide the door for the 
imm grution of slaves'. But thi-', also, is a small matter 
of dilTcrence with the President." 

Mr. Chairman, not only are the people of the 
Territory deprived of the right of voting against 
the Constitution, and defeating it altogether ; not 
only are they denied the privilege of voting for a 
Constitution which prohibits Slavery, but the 
Free State men, who are admitted to compose 
an overwhelming majority, have no opportunity 
allowed them to choose between the two Pro- 
Slavery forms which were submitted. Their 
right even to make this choice is dependent on 
the performance of a condition which, it must 
have been well known, they cannot do other- 
wise than reject. 

Section nine of the schedule provides as fol- 
lows : 

'^Any person offering to vole at the aforessiid election, 
upon said Cnnsiituiioii. shall, if challenged, take an oaih 
to support the Constitution of the United Slates, and to 
support this Constitution if adopted, under the penalties of 
perjury under the Territorial laws." 

Now, sir, under this schedule, the voter knows, 
when he offers his ballot, that the Constitution 
with Slavery may be adopted. He not only has 
the right to assume, but he does and must as- 
sume, that it will be. In this case, may is equiv- 
alent to must. He must be prepared to say and 
swear that he will support the Constitution in 
whichever of the two forms proposed it may be 
adopted. Suppose it to be accepted "with Sla- 
very " — as in fact it has been — and one of its 
sections will read in these words : 

" The right of properly ij before and higher than »ny con- 
stitutional sanction, and the rjxht of the owner n/a slave to 
nceh slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolabU as 
the right of the owner of any property whatever.'^ 

Thus the citizen who offers his ballc* may be 
required, before he can deposit it, to swear that 
he will support and maintain, as a great funda- 
mental truth, as one of the axioms of government, 
the proposition that the right to hold human 
beings in Slavery is before and higher than any 
constitutional sanction ; or, in other words, is 
founded in absolute and eternal justice. All this 
he must swear, or he cannot vote. It ia not 
enough that he should make oath that he is of 
lawful age; that he is an American citizen; that 
ho has been a resident of the Territory the term 



8 



required by law, and is ia all respects a qualified 
voter ; but he is esteemed unfit to vote concerning 
the institutions under which he is to live, unless 
he will recognise, by an appeal to the God of 
truth, the baldest, bitterest lie that ever blistered 
human lips. 

Speaking of this system, General Cass said, in 
his Nebraska speech : 

''Slavery U, in my opinion, a? I have fai* more than 
onco before in llie S -nate, and. I hiive no lionbl. unac- 
cepmbly to many, a great evil, social u"d political." 

Henry Clay declared that it could never be de- 
fended, " so long as the light of reason and the 
love of liberty remained among men." To the 
mind of Daniel Webster it was a thing " ac- 
cursed." Thomas Jefferson denounced the traffic 
npon which it was founded as "pinACY" and 
" THE OPPKOBHIUM OP Infidel Poweus." Lord 
Brougham has characterized its fundamental idea 
as a "wild and guilty fantasy." John Wesley 
pronounced it "the sum of all villianies." The 
great master of the drama, who understood so 
well all the sides and relations of human life, to 
whose marvellous insight nothing concerning man 
was impenetrable, speaks of it as a "curse," and 
as feeding its victims with " distressful bread ; " 
and our blessed Lord and Saviour has condemned 
it in all the lessons of His life, not less than in 
the memorable words, "All things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do unto you, do ye even 
so to them." But now, in the last half of the 
nineteenth century, in free democratic America, 
the people are not to be intrusted with the exer- 
cise of one of their dearest rights, until they de- 
clare that they will maintain, protect, and uphold 
this system, as founded in natural right, so help 
TOEM God ! 

And, sir, the Free State men of Kansas must 
have foreseen that in any possible event, whether 
they should attempt to vote or not, a majority of 
the votes were to be counted and returned for 
the Pro-Slavery side. They knew that the men 
who had counted twelve hundred votes in Oxford 
precinct would be ready to do it again if neces- 
sary. They saw that the army, whose protection 
had been refused them when they had needed it, 
would be employed to protect voters from abroad, 
if required. And the event has justified their 
anticipations. Thirteen hundred votes were given 
in Oxford, not one hundred of which can be le- 
gal — but they are to be considered legal, and no 
evidence will be permitted to affect their recep- 
tion. President Pierce, in his special message of 
January 24lh, 1856, told the Free State men, "it 
is not the duty of the President of the United 
States to volunteer interposition by force to pre- 
serve the purity of elections, either in a State or 
Territory. To do so, would be subversive of 
public freedom." Oh, no! the army may not be 
used to protect the actual residents and legal 
voters in 1 855 and 1 85G, Avho are for free Kansas ; 
but is to be paraded around the polls and the 



avenues thereto in 1857, to guard the Missou- 
rians, who have come over to the Territory on 
the neighborly errand of voting a Constitution 
for its people, which establishes Slavery as an 
unchangeable system among them. 

Mr. Chairman, the "Constitution with Sla- 
very " was accepted on the 21st of December, by 
the vote of a meager minority of the actual resi- 
dents of Kansas. It is to be the organic, funda- 
mental law of that State, unchangeable forever 
in respect to Slavery, as appears from a provision 
which I have already cited, and will here read 
again — it is in the section (fourteen) of the 
schedule which refers to the future amendment 
of the Constitution, and is as follows: "i?M< no 
alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property 
in the oicnership of slaves." In no way but by 
revolution can a change be effected in the slavery 
provisions of this Constitution, and should a 
movement of this kind be resorted to by four- 
fifths of the people, the President stands ready 
with the army of the United States to crush it 
and those who participate in it. 

That the people might have voted on the 21st 
of December, and prevented the adoption of this 
Constitution, is, as I have shown, a palpable and 
vital error. But, let me repeat, the Free State 
men, who are admitted on all hands, even by 
Calhoun and the Border Ruffians, to be largely 
in the majority, were excluded from the ballot- 
box by the oath which I have read;/07- they could 
not take that oath and be Free Stale 7>ien. But if 
no such oath had been interposed, how would 
the case have stood? The election was under 
the entire control of the architects of the Oxford 
and McGee frauds, and those who had procured 
or connived at the voting of Missouriaus in pre- 
vious elections ; and the Administration at 
Washington had, by its rebuke of Governor 
Walker and Secretary Stanton, for their rejec- 
tion of false and fraudulent returns, intimated, 
in the most unequivocal manner, that any meas- 
ures necessary to carry the points of the Propa- 
gandists would be approved, or, at least, winked 
at. And besides, even if the election had been 
committed to the supervision of just and impar- 
tial men, who would have received and counted 
all legal votes, and no others, there would, 
nevertheless, have been no opportunity for a 
vote against the Constitution, nor whether Sla- 
very should or should not exist in the new State. 
The people were only permitted to say from 
what sources the future supplies of slaves should 
be derived. 

Sir, with this plain and truthful statement, 
which defies contradiction, what an insult is it 
to the intelligence of this country, what a cruel 
mockery to the abused people of Kansas, for the 
President and his masters to declare that the 
dreadful responsibility of making Kansas a slave 
State, if such it shall be, rests with the Free 
State men of that Territory ! 



BUELL 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 
& BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1858. 






:j'i,>'^:\(ii^H*lifi^BC>'v :* -".4 -'', 

iSBi^^M^^Bf H^' '?*•■;■■■ jav%'-- *' I.- •■ ■ 

/■•■r'wv '■•■ ■ ■ -jt-"'!'.aHHHBi^fc •■'-■•■■ ■ •■■• 










\w.7i '^>i*y^^\. ■=:-»T.f'''5,v' ■'. 



>^«tj*^ 






t ,v.Y»- .■^^*, >J»ttte* 



:MV 






■■ K' 



v<. -■'-- 



*.■ ;/^-*>;" 






LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



mil mil nil III 
016 094 443 2 



